1 - 10 Next
Common sense, not science, is the key to Ebola response. Science, if done right, may or may not develop a solution but isolating the infected, if done right, will.
As Van Jones laughingly admitted, Sarah Palin gave one of the very best and most stirring campaign speeches ever when John McCain nominated her for Vice President and she scared the hell out of Democrats.
In response to:

Where Was President Obama?

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Oct 24, 2014 11:09 AM
I guess that Obama doesn't think the Canadians are primarily responsible for attacks against them as he does for Americans.
How dare members of the MSM pursue non-answers from Democrat politicians.
What in the world will it take to get Obama supporters to realize and admit that government lawlessness is intolerable even if done by politicians you like for ideological reasons with which you agree. The infuriating thing is that these are the same people who otherwise bask and preen under the cover of 'fairness'.
That is a question that needs answering.
In response to:

Paul Krugman's Late Obama Valentine

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Oct 22, 2014 12:47 PM
But, but, I thought it was Bushes spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that got us into this economic mess? How could spending on the war against aliens get us out of it? For that matter, how could more government spending of any type get us out of a crisis government spending got us into? Was it supposed to be Obama's wise choices on what to spend that $500 billion on motivated not by any experience in economics but by his personal preferences as to what busi9nesses should be successful?
In response to:

Embarrassing Economists

Raymond, (Ret) Wrote: Oct 22, 2014 12:32 PM
The sad truth is that, while there is motivation for employers to pay their employees as little as they can to do the work they need the employees to do, there is also a requirement that the work the employee does contributes to the business sufficient to warrant that pay. They are two sides of the same coin. Krugman looks at only one of those sides and disregards the other. Instead he attributes the difference in what an employee is paid and what the left deems to be living wage is all because of employer greed and unrelated to the value to the employer of what the employee is capable of doing. In fact, to some extent an employer could afford to pay any and all employees more than what they do, not just those getting the lowest pay. Still, there is a limit to what the employer can pay for each and every job that requires doing and still stay in business. The problem is how that is to be determined and enforced. Whatever it is, there is no consistent minimum independent of what a particular job entails. Even if there was, government bureaucrats are not capable of determining it. Flawed though it may be, the employer is the only reasonable judge. What Krugman wants and what the notion of a minimum wage amounts to is government enforced charity from businesses where money is transferred to an individual out of compassion rather than value received. Charity is a good and noble thing but, like everything else, the government is not very good at it largely because it is too removed from the circumstances, and too subject to bureaucratic ineptitude and political manipulation. Besides, the government is not capable of doing anything well. There are just some things that government must do even if poorly because no other resource can do them at all. Curious that the left never considers that someone might do more than one low paying job while they garner the experience and knowledge to offer value to an employer that does warrant 'a living wage'. But, of course, the left panders not just those who cannot help themselves but to those who, therefore, will not help themselves all while refusing to acknowledge that the latter even exist to any consequential extent. But a vote is a vote and it bothers neither those voters nor the left that they are casting their votes for people who do not acknowledge their existence.
Saying no to 'voter ID schemes' is saying no to confining the right to vote to those who have it. Democrats are masterful at getting people they want to a voting booth and would clearly be just as effective in insuring that those eligible for voter ID's would get them.. So their getting voter ID's cannot be their true objection. It is the eligibility part that bothers them.
Thomas Jefferson's Wall of Separation between government and religion was predicated on the notion that there were aspects of life that were not the business of government. As that has become decreasingly true there is less and less that can be done by way of religious practices that cannot be claimed to be somehow under the purview of government and so not allowed by the very amendment that the Founders intended to protect it.
1 - 10 Next